What does democracy mean to Islamic parties?

Khairil Azhar ,  Jakarta   |  Sun, 05/24/2009 10:38 AM  |  Opinion

The leaders of Islamic parties immediately reacted negatively to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's (SBY) choice of Boediono as his vice-presidential running mate.

Their paradigm of combining nationalist and Islamic "chemistry" seems to have been washed away as SBY takes on board a professional and not a political figure with a large constituency. The news however, did not shock some political observers, who had predicted this possibility previously. But some may take this as a show of force by the Democratic Party. While all research conducted so far shows they are way ahead in the polls, SBY and his party are trying to be more independent and take the middle path. They do not want to look as if they were under pressure by the Islamic parties and are meanwhile trying to accommodate current market demands.

On the other hand, the choice of a businessman as a running mate might be the best choice among bad options. Not only does the current economic climate have to be considered, but the possible consequences of choosing a candidate proposed by one of the Democratic Party's many supporting coalition partners had to be take into account, as it may have caused friction among the parties themselves.

A significant consideration in choosing a running mate may have been the inside voice of the party, saying democracy assumes and requires proportionality basis among factions. Rather than play favorites, a better and more equitable way to "satisfy" the many supporting parties is through power sharing at the ministerial level. It is this alternative that SBY appears to have chosen.

So, what should Islamic parties do?

Indonesia is the best example of Benedict Anderson's idea of the "imagined community". The formation of the nation was obviously based on multiculturalism and democracy and was dedicated to avoiding any kind of tyranny. The country has been built on a "social contract", in which diversity is a national asset and every single individual has equal rights as a citizen.

The fact that Islamic political parties did not get the majority of votes is another instance of how religious bonds do not mean everything. It proves that the "imagined community" for most Muslims is actually not a state with a certain religious label. Instead of having a sectarian state, they have voted to have a more egalitarian one in which differences are common and accepted. This is of course not about being a good Muslim, as Islam allows its followers to make their own choices. After all, there are many schools of thought and factions within the Muslim community.

It is then, inevitably, about the willingness to accept something. The Islamic parties (especially the leaders) do not need to feel disappointed and withdraw their support for a more nationalist based government. They should see the diversity as a rahmat (blessing) from the universe. The paradigm should be more moderate and not consist only of only a center and peripheral(s), but be comprised of unnumbered entities. They have to learn how to celebrate differences.

Islamic parties, for instance, need to show they are at the forefront of democracy. With the wealth of moral values contained by the religion they have to be more like salt, which disappears in form but appears in taste. Did not Mohammad Hatta, an Islamist as well as nationalist and socialist, remind us to practice the religiosities and avoid the labeling which leads us into friction and hypocrisy?

An Islamic party that has been successfully endorsing anti-corruption acts so far can go on promoting its clean image. It should try to make up to show that it is not just a gimmick, a hypocritical move. It becomes questionable if an honor mission is taken advantage of to seek power. Does this not represent a lack of istiqamah (consistency)?

The Islamic parties also must be able to show their high moral standards in politics. Prejudices and accusations will only see them lose the support of the people. A lack of personal and party integrity will see parties fail as others before them. To accept a win or a loss is the first step to move forward, and not a backwards move. They need to be more self-critical and better themselves more appropriately. It is about how people accept them, not how they accept the people.

The writer graduated from the Sharia Faculty of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta and majored in Islamic Schools of Thought.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.